Laserfiche WebLink
<br />based upon the value of the property he does not think: the City would have an issue <br />proving that the benefit exceeds the costs. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers commented that the only way to protect the City <br />from incurring costs if the amounts were contested would be to require a waiver for this <br />phase. She then indicated that she would like to see new waiver language to protect the <br />City in this phase of the development especially in light of the fact that there. was not <br />contesting in the formal sense, but significant questions during the previous phase. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra commented that the original bonding is costing the City $130,000 <br />because of early payoffs and she is concerned about any fi.rtu,re costs being brought on by <br />Phase m. <br /> <br />Council Member Lee indicated he would like to see a waiver as we to protect the City <br />from unexpected costs. <br /> <br />Council Member Paar agreed. <br /> <br /> <br />[~ent indicated that she and Mr. Hoeft <br />for Phase I extensively and this document is <br />no questions. She then indicated that Mr. Runkle is concerned <br />e fees and would like an explanation. <br /> <br /> <br />Ms. Karen <br />had gone thro <br />very similar <br />with some of <br /> <br />Mr. Runkle indicated that there were four street sweepings at $150 and now that price is <br />$250. He also indicated that graveVsilt fencing increased from $150 to $500 and the <br />increased costs have increased the required letter of credit from $4.200 to $14.000. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that the developer's concern lies in the fact that the <br />increased estimated costs results in a higher dollar figure for the 150010 retainage required <br />for the letter of credit. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers commented that she did not feel that $15.000 was <br />going to significantly impact a corporation the size of Ground Development. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra commented that this developer has asked in the past to reduce the <br />150% retainage amount and the previous Council said no. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she did not feel that it was a significant <br />cost especially since the City had to payout for the first phase. She further commented <br />that any costs associated with the increased financing for the development could be <br />absorbed in the sale prices of the lots. <br /> <br />Ms. Marty indicated there is an Exhibit B but the document does not refer to an Exhibit <br />B. City Attorney Hoeft indicated the document was for informational purposes. <br /> <br />Page 7 of 14 <br />